Larijani: Defending national security beyond borders signifies Iran’s strength
Iran promotes field preparation, active diplomacy as general policy
“We live for peace, not for war.” These are the words of Ali Larijani, a statesman with a remarkable record, including serving as the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament for three terms, advisor to the Supreme Leader, and member of the Expediency Discernment Council. Larijani has recently spoken to Khabaronline journalists in two separate interviews about regional developments, including the escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, Iran’s relations with the West, particularly with the US, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), and the lifting of anti-Iran sanctions, as well as domestic issues. He said that defending national security beyond borders is not a sign of weakness, but a demonstration of strength. According to him, the country’s stance on regional developments is rooted in its commitment to defending national security and interests. To achieve this, Iran must be fully prepared on the field and utilize its diplomatic capacities effectively. In this section, the most important parts of these two interviews and the key responses are presented:
KHABARONLINE: The Leader [Ayatolloh Seyyed Ali Khamenei] has made two key statements in recent weeks, coinciding with the escalation of tensions in the region and specifically between Iran and Israel: “Neither should we be sluggish nor hasty”, “Neither should we underestimate nor overstate”. Given your experience in both diplomacy and on the field, how do you interpret and analyze these two statements by the Leader?
Larijani: Everyone must acknowledge that we live for peace, not for war. War is a phenomenon that may be necessary at times, but everyone strives to minimize wars and avoid them whenever possible, instead opting for diplomatic solutions. This doesn’t mean we compromise on our beliefs, but rather that we prioritize peace over war.
Reason dictates that we should take the path with the lowest cost. If that fails, we may resort to other methods. In the current situation, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the Americans and Israelis have orchestrated this venture. In the recent aggression against Iran [October 26], it has become clear that the Americans have provided intelligence and equipment to the Israelis. Therefore, our opponent is the Americans, who openly claim to be standing alongside Israel. We have faced off against the Americans in the past, but the nature of this confrontation is different now.
The second point is that the developments unfolding in the region ultimately boil down to brutality. In Gaza, 50,000 people are killed. The world makes a fuss, but political leaders fail to take concrete action to contain the situation. We are faced with a malevolent force that seeks to fundamentally alter the regional landscape. Some say that Israel is at odds with the Arabs, so why should we get involved?”
We mustn’t make this mistake because we are pursuing our own national interests. Of course, we also take into account Islamic and humanitarian values, but national interests are the top priority. If someone thinks that these dangerous entities, which are currently causing chaos, won’t eventually set their sights on other places, they have a misguided understanding of the situation. Even now, some Arab countries that usually criticize us and have different ideologies are worried about Israel, saying that once Israel finishes its work in one place, it will move on to another.
Israel’s goal is to exert a profound influence over the region, which, if achieved, would leave little room for maneuver for other countries. This would be detrimental to both the region and our own interests.
Defending your national security outside your own territory is not a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of strength. Of course, it has its consequences.
Now, with all this being said, what needs to be done? In my opinion, the Leader’s words, that the recent incident [Israel’s attack on Iran’s military targets on Oct. 26] should neither be downplayed nor exaggerated as others do, hit the nail on the head. The military officials will provide their explanations in due time, though. Now, how should we navigate this path given the circumstances?
In my view, we need to be adequately prepared in the field, and we must also utilize our diplomatic capabilities effectively. The diplomacy that needs to be employed cannot be just a show; it needs to be strategic diplomacy.
This crisis will eventually come to an end. It is crucial that the essence of the matter is understood correctly and that the people are informed accurately, so they don’t get the impression that the Islamic Republic is eager for a confrontation. The Islamic Republic is not interested in conflict, but it is prepared to defend itself.
In the trend we’ve witnessed over the past year and a half, and especially in recent months, a large number of key commanders and important figures from Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as key advisors from the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), have been targeted. Do you think the elimination of these individuals through assassination, bombing, and other means will deal a blow to the existing structure?
It will certainly have a temporary impact, but we need to differentiate between two levels. In the short term, it causes damage. There’s no doubt about it. And for some individuals, the damage will be long-term as well.
The mistake Israel makes is thinking that by eliminating a few figures, the problem will be solved. Those who are currently fighting in Gaza are not all [Yahya]Sinwar or [Ismail] Haniyeh; they are the youths who continue the holy struggle. There’s a point that Westerners and Israelis often overlook.
The struggle we refer to as resistance - what does it mean? For us, resistance means that its core element is the holy struggle. The holy struggle is linked to the religious emotions and sentiments of the people. The question is, when you assassinate these figures, do these emotions disappear or intensify? They intensify. As has been the case throughout history. The same applies to Hezbollah.
Iran’s delay in responding to the assassination of Haniyeh on its soil was due to the cease-fire that official authorities also confirmed, but the cease-fire did not happen, and we saw what followed. From your words, it can be inferred that a cease-fire is still a viable option for the Islamic Republic. Or, after the events of the past few weeks, has a cease-fire been ruled out?
A cease-fire is not something that can be easily dismissed. After all, the less costly the solution, the better it is for Muslims and the oppressed. We, who are sitting here, must consider that they [Gazans] are under bombardment, and we should try to defend women, men, and others, both on the battlefield and through diplomacy.
Therefore, a cease-fire is certainly something we think about and find beneficial. Our foreign minister, who has traveled to various countries, has also made efforts to prevent the situation from escalating. But we must be prepared in every way. However, the priority is to resolve the issue through simpler means.
How seriously do you consider the issue of infiltration in Iran, Lebanon, and the entire Resistance Axis in recent events?
Generally, the issue of infiltration in Iran has been serious in recent years. In my opinion, some oversights have occurred in the past few years, and although the country’s security agencies have dealt with some of them, they have not been able to prevent all of them. Nevertheless, it is an important point that they are still pursuing and thinking of ways to address it.
Do we have infiltration in the country’s political and security structure, or in the military?
I can’t say which sector, but I do know that there have been incidents like assassinations, both of nuclear scientists and others, that show they have infiltrated. Uncovering this is very important, both in terms of quantity and quality. Therefore, we need to be sensitive to this issue and find the clues, and this sensitivity has now been created.
Do you think the outcome of the US presidential election will have an impact on the recent tensions in the region?
Apparently, it will. I mean, some of the trends in the US are more radical, and overall, Americans play a key role in this issue. But some of them are even more radical. I don’t know how much impact it will have, since they are already operating at full speed in the region.
The situation is at its most chaotic. I doubt that the next generation of Americans who come to power can take it further than this. They have already provided all the military and non-military support they can. What else can they add? But perhaps the circumstances will bring them to their senses and they will show more balanced behavior.
As we approach the 45th anniversary of the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran, how effective do you think that event was in shaping the eternal breakup between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US.
No one has said [it has been an] “eternal breakup”. Imam Khomeini and the Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) have both stated that we never say that our issues with the US can never be resolved, but rather that the US needs to change its behavior. There is no doubt that the Americans are causing a lot of problems under the current circumstances. My understanding is that right now, in the combat we are in, the United States is standing against us. Israel is an instrument of action. Recently, I saw that a Russian official at the UN Security Council said that the Americans have even shared Iranian military intelligence with Israel. So, this is how it works: they are openly taking Israel’s side, pretending to be looking for a cease-fire, but in reality, they are backing Israel. Therefore, I think we need to be realistic about this.
Don’t you think that the takeover of the US embassy on November 4, 1979, played a role in turning the Iran-US relationship into a red line for the Islamic Republic?
Let’s consider that in the world of politics, countries like the US are pragmatic and follow their own interests. Take a look at how the Americans have dealt with Iran since that date. It is not the case that there is a red line; at certain times, negotiations have taken place with the Americans. For example, negotiations were held with the US regarding Iraq. The same goes for the JCPOA...
But it was never official.
It was official.
So, did the presidents of Iran at the time have direct negotiations with the presidents of the US?
Not at the presidential level, but officials at lower levels did negotiate.
Nevertheless, a bilateral relationship with other countries has a clear definition.
Yes, because in some cases, they didn’t treat Iran fairly. After the JCPOA, incidents occurred that changed their approach. Mr. Trump, after all those negotiations, tore it apart. And after that, he committed a crime in the case of General Qasem Soleimani. We need to look at all these events in one context.
So, you mean that if the embassy hadn’t been taken over, the same incidents would have occurred between Iran and the US?
In the world of politics, countries pursue their own interests, with or without an embassy. I’m not saying it had no impact, but I’m saying that if they wanted to have a reasonable relationship with Iran, they could have acted in a way that would have resolved the embassy issue, but they didn’t. As soon as an incident occurred in Iran, they would take advantage of it to weaken Iran.
What was your opinion about the embassy takeover at the time, and what is it now?
At the time, the Imam said it was a “second revolution” and everyone supported it. I don’t think anyone was opposed to it at the time, at least not openly. But now the question is, given the situation we’re in, what should we do? I think that with the crisis created by Israel and the US, we need to think logically and reasonably about this issue. Especially you, as a media outlet, sometimes create an unjustified infatuation in society about the US, which lacks a reasonable basis. You should be pursuing Iran’s national interests. If our interests are secured with China or Russia one day, we should negotiate with them. If our national interests are met with the West, we should negotiate with the West. We don’t want to be one-dimensional; our national interests should be the basis. If the Americans did something wrong, we should say so and take our business elsewhere. We might work with the Chinese. The point is that our national interests should be the priority.
The full interview was published first by the Persian-language Khabaronline news agency.